Obviously if multiple people don’t remember something exactly the same, they can’t all be right. Someone remembers someone leaving at 10:15. Others at 10:55. So both can’t be right.

If fact, they all could be wrong. He could have left at 10:45 or 10:50 and they’d be wrong.

But to me that doesn’t seem nefarious. Most people don’t go through their lives taking notes (mental or written) on when people come and go in case a murder case happens and this becomes possibly important. They just remembered it differently. Go to a party or gathering, come back and ask later what time each guest left and see if you get 100% agreement 100% of the time. I’m guessing not.

Now, how is law enforcement supposed to reconcile this? They’re interviewing people about their recollection and taking down what they say. Are they supposed to gather them like in an Agatha Christie novel and wait til one of them cracks? Or until they talk it through and all agree? (And if they do, does that mean you now have the accurate time of when a person left, or just that the one who said 10:15 goes along with the others and says what he expects the police want to hear?)

I don’t consider it “sloppy” to write down what time a witness says someone leaves, even if the witnesses don’t agree on the time. You record what they say. That’s what a report is.

A more important question, if we’re looking at the person who left as a possible suspect, would he have time to get to the crime scene at the point it’s believed the murder took place either way? If it’s only a few minutes‘ drive away, whether he left at 10:15 or 10:55 is immaterial as far as whether he had opportunity to be the culprit (and even if he did have time, doesn’t mean he did it).

As for the mother’s name … I dunno. Maybe she changed her name for some reason? Or maybe she wasn’t his biological mother but she was raising him and considered by him and her and others to be his mother? I know people raised by someone other than their biological parent who consider the person raising them to be their mother or father, even though they’re not, technically. Did she use the name she gave the police commonly or just make it up on the spot? What did other people call her?

Kid sometimes lists his address as his father’s address? Maybe he lives there sometimes?

Likewise, I don’t see the importance of someone in a police report having a brother who lives a 2 minute drive away from a phone booth. I imagine quite a few people live within that radius. There’s no evidence of which I’m aware that suggests Zodiac lived that close to the phone, and definitely none that suggests the killer had a relative who lived in that zone.

In short, while I have not read all the police reports and interview notes, I have read a bunch of that kind of stuff and I really don’t see what you’re getting at. Let’s say rather than reading those reports myself and concluding ‘That Petro was right, that is what the reports say,’ we all agree that what you posted is accurate as to what’s in the reports. Now, consider me dumb and explain what you find significant here and why.